Google chairman admits Google Glass can be “weird,” “inappropriate”

Eric Schmidt says society needs new rules to accomodate the headsets.

Google has long seemed blissfully unaware that Google Glass doesn't so much step on the toes of etiquette as it does mildly assault them. But speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government on Thursday, Google executive chariman Eric Schmidt admitted to a little bit of awkwardness with speaking commands to Google Glass, stating that sometimes the glasses can be “inappropriate,” according to Reuters.

Schmidt has championed Google Glass since its unveiling last year. Sets of the glasses come with a small panel of controls mounted in the headset, including a touchpad, but the primary method of interaction is telling Glass aloud what to do (“OK, Glass, take a photo”).

But Schmidt stated in his talk that executing the voice commands is “the weirdest thing” and noted that society will, of course, need to develop new etiquette to make itself comfortable with these devices that enable surreptitious image, video, and audio capture. Schmidt appears to take the idea that society will accept them at all as a fait accompli.

Schmidt continued by stating that “there are obviously places where Google glasses are inappropriate.” We can think of a few locations where people might have a problem with them: bathrooms, changing rooms… pretty much any private enterprise could conceivably oppose them. One bar preemptively banned them.

Google does seem to have worked on other control schemes for Glass in the recent past, including projected touch surfaces and a “wink” gesture. Google may still be able to tweak Glass such that owners don’t have to embarrass themselves by barking orders at seemingly nothing.

I'm not surprised that he wouldn't say as much in public; but has anyone at Google considered the possibility that society might just 'make itself comfortable'; by developing etiquette that involves not buying the product and shunning those who do?

Neal Stephenson (among others) predicted Google Glass in his breakthrough novel, Snow Crash, with his character Lagos, a semi-comedic gargoyle (a person using a wearable computer who was a stringer for the internet, essentially). Augmented reality ain't what it used to be.

Neal Stephenson (among others) predicted Google Glass in his breakthrough novel, Snow Crash, with his character Lagos, a semi-comedic gargoyle (a person using a wearable computer who was a stringer for the internet, essentially). Augmented reality ain't what it used to be.

Just remember what 'etiquette' a particular literally-thermonuclear badass 'developed' for Lagos after an instance of socially inappropriate recording....

Neal Stephenson (among others) predicted Google Glass in his breakthrough novel, Snow Crash, with his character Lagos, a semi-comedic gargoyle (a person using a wearable computer who was a stringer for the internet, essentially). Augmented reality ain't what it used to be.

Try L. Frank Baum in 1901. By the time Snow Crash was published in 1992 we could do AR it was just very expensive and very clunky

Google Glass appeals to same douche nozzles who thought calculator watches were cool. Neither make you any sexier. Except with glass you would have to just want to broadcast how much disregard you have for social interaction from across the room

We've struggled for years with etiquette for cell phones, and we have no consensus about when cell phones should and shouldn't be used, while we still have a raging debate about where they should be banned (e.g. driving, on planes during take-off, etc).

To say that we may need to develop a new etiquette for this device is a cop-out, when they could be taking an actual stance right from the start.

Technology has always pushed the envelopes concerning etiquette, ethics and legal repercussions. Everything from the Genome Project down to civilian surveillance, from printing out your own military grade weapons to the morning after pill.

People already look crazy when talking on bluetooth devices, so it won't really be new.

Sure, and the people who walk around with Bluetooth headsets, even when they aren't talking to anyone, are generally considered to be pretty socially inept too. I'm not sure if I agree that society will adapt to it being normal, when we already have an example of something less intrusive being on the market for years, yet it's rare to see someone just walking around with a headset on.

I certainly won't be wearing these to a date, party or any sort of event that involves extensive communication with other humans.

This is what I don't understand about the hypercriticism. Does anyone really think that dating is an intended use case?

Well...if I don't feel comfortable enough to use voice controls or the camera, why bother with GLASS? A cellphone is good enough for most everything, and I'd prefer a portable, full-fledged HMD for traveling.

Adding the camera creates a lot of complications on the moral and legal level, I just wonder if it's worth the trouble to add.

"Google may still be able to tweak Glass such that owners don’t have to embarrass themselves by ..." being stupid enough to have paid real money to the sum of $1,500 to beta test a product for the benefit of the world's biggest, and richest, advertising company.

I certainly won't be wearing these to a date, party or any sort of event that involves extensive communication with other humans.

This is what I don't understand about the hypercriticism. Does anyone really think that dating is an intended use case?

Well...if I don't feel comfortable enough to use voice controls or the camera, why bother with GLASS?

..on a date? Don't get me wrong - unless something has gone terribly wrong or extraordinarily right, I'm not using my camcorder or voice-to-text on a date, either - but, again, is this really the intended use case?

I just don't understand the need to shoehorn all the instances for which a product is not appropriate into the discussion on the merits of the product itself.

I certainly won't be wearing these to a date, party or any sort of event that involves extensive communication with other humans.

This is what I don't understand about the hypercriticism. Does anyone really think that dating is an intended use case?

Well...if I don't feel comfortable enough to use voice controls or the camera, why bother with GLASS?

..on a date? Don't get me wrong - unless something has gone terribly wrong or extraordinarily right, I'm not using my camcorder or voice-to-text on a date, either - but, again, is this really the intended use case?

I just don't understand the need to shoehorn all the instances for which a product is not appropriate into the discussion on the merits of the product itself.

Maybe it's because I'm shortsighted, but I don't take off my glasses just because I'm on a date. I think that the basic principle behind Google Glass is that you would wear them at all times. Why? Because if you have to dig them out of your pocket or your bag to use them, then what is the difference between them and a smartphone? They would offer very few benefits over using a smartphone unless you wore them every moment of your conscious life.

I certainly won't be wearing these to a date, party or any sort of event that involves extensive communication with other humans.

This is what I don't understand about the hypercriticism. Does anyone really think that dating is an intended use case?

I don't think they have an intended use case. It is a technology in search of uses, which is why they are in this whole "developer brainstorming" mode- they want to see what people come up with. Which is fine, but I guarantee that dating and far more risque uses will come up. Rule 34, after all. Technology will be used in unwise as well as wise ways.

The fundamental problem for many people, myself included, is any use of Glass while face-to-face with another human being comes off as disrespectful to the person you are talking to. You are essentially advertising that your attention is ready, eager, and enabled to wander freely while you continue to gaze earnestly at them, uttering "uhuh" every 10 seconds when prompted in the corner of your screen, and recording it all so that later you can run it through an automated interest filter to see if they might have said something interesting that you should go back and listen to. Hyperbolic, but you get the point.

And it is a point that will leap instantly into the mind of anyone confronted by someone wearing these things: "What are they paying attention to? Me, or something in the cloud?" People are already getting very touchy about people who use their smartphones to avoid interacting with the world, and this just looks like that times ten, like walking around holding your smartphone up on the side at eye level so that you don't even have to look away from people's faces to check your feeds. That is just fundamentally rude, and moreover badly timed culturally, and I don't think there is an easy way around it, despite the best intentions in the world.

I am a nerd, and I love cool technology like this as much as anyone. But that is separate from my analysis that this will probably fail culturally, and maybe should.

..on a date? Don't get me wrong - unless something has gone terribly wrong or extraordinarily right, I'm not using my camcorder or voice-to-text on a date, either - but, again, is this really the intended use case?

I just don't understand the need to shoehorn all the instances for which a product is not appropriate into the discussion on the merits of the product itself.

Maybe it's because I'm shortsighted, but I don't take off my glasses just because I'm on a date. I think that the basic principle behind Google Glass is that you would wear them at all times. Why? Because if you have to dig them out of your pocket or your bag to use them, then what is the difference between them and a smartphone? They would offer very few benefits over using a smartphone unless you wore them every moment of your conscious life.

I don't think he suggested taking them off on a date, just refraining from using the video recorder and speech-to-text options.

I don't think he suggested taking them off on a date, just refraining from using the video recorder and speech-to-text options.

The problem is not with using the actual functions, but the perception that you might, however small the possibility, be using them. Your girlfriend/normal friend/boss/coworker will be offended nonetheless.

..on a date? Don't get me wrong - unless something has gone terribly wrong or extraordinarily right, I'm not using my camcorder or voice-to-text on a date, either - but, again, is this really the intended use case?

I just don't understand the need to shoehorn all the instances for which a product is not appropriate into the discussion on the merits of the product itself.

Maybe it's because I'm shortsighted, but I don't take off my glasses just because I'm on a date. I think that the basic principle behind Google Glass is that you would wear them at all times. Why? Because if you have to dig them out of your pocket or your bag to use them, then what is the difference between them and a smartphone? They would offer very few benefits over using a smartphone unless you wore them every moment of your conscious life.

I don't think he suggested taking them off on a date, just refraining from using the video recorder and speech-to-text options.

Missing the point - unless you physically remove them for your date or any other human interaction, they will either be distracting you through notifications of emails, messages, your Angry Birds high score, or they will be making the person with you think that you are being distracted by notifications of your emails, messages, etc in addition to them thinking that you are recording them.

Maybe it's because I'm shortsighted, but I don't take off my glasses just because I'm on a date.

But, supposing you have an ear piece, wireless or wired, you do that that off for a date, no? (I have one, and I only use it in specific situations.)

Quote:

I think that the basic principle behind Google Glass is that you would wear them at all times. Why? Because if you have to dig them out of your pocket or your bag to use them, then what is the difference between them and a smartphone?

Hands free use, for starters. Video and audio that moves with you as you move about the kitchen(!), workshop(2), or office(3) (home office, if we're hung up on people seeing us wearing the device).

Quote:

They would offer very few benefits over using a smartphone unless you wore them every moment of your conscious life.

(1) Recipe and/or cooking video always in front of you instead of going back to the book or smartphone; you have an image of what the end result should look like as you are producing it just a small glance away(2) Instructional videos playing in front of you as you work on a craft, egine, or other DIY project(3) Cordoned messaging, stock ticker, other forms of assistant (can also apply to 1 and 2)(1, 2, 3) Inventory reminders as you glance over consumables

I don't think he suggested taking them off on a date, just refraining from using the video recorder and speech-to-text options.

No, to be very clear: I would definitely suggest taking them off on a date, as I would any headset (wired or wireless)(excluding certain headsets you may need to function or live..).

It's really not that complicated.

Other suggestions for dating:

Don't text or place/take phone calls at the dinner table or in the movie or in bedDon't stare at your phone, read a book, or watch TV (unless these are somehow incorporated into the date)Do make eye contact with your dateDo make conversation with your date

I hopy the glasses are not keyed to users voice. I would love being able to go up to someone wearing it and say "Ok, glass, image search tub girl". What a wonderful new way of burning images directly on to peoples retina.

Maybe it's because I'm shortsighted, but I don't take off my glasses just because I'm on a date.

But, supposing you have an ear piece, wireless or wired, you do that that off for a date, no? (I have one, and I only use it in specific situations.)

See my comment above - I am not an arsehole.

Quote:

Quote:

I think that the basic principle behind Google Glass is that you would wear them at all times. Why? Because if you have to dig them out of your pocket or your bag to use them, then what is the difference between them and a smartphone?

Hands free use, for starters. Video and audio that moves with you as you move about the kitchen(!), workshop(2), or office(3) (home office, if we're hung up on people seeing us wearing the device).

Quote:

They would offer very few benefits over using a smartphone unless you wore them every moment of your conscious life.

(1) Recipe and/or cooking video always in front of you instead of going back to the book or smartphone; you have an image of what the end result should look like as you are producing it just a small glance away(2) Instructional videos playing in front of you as you work on a craft, egine, or other DIY project(3) Cordoned messaging, stock ticker, other forms of assistant (can also apply to 1 and 2)(1, 2, 3) Inventory reminders as you glance over consumables

And that's just for personal, in-home use.

Are you trying to prove my point or counter it? Because I think you've just achieved the opposite of what you were thinking.

Fwiw, if I want hands free use for e.g. a phone conversation - or to listen to music - while doing something else, I plug in my headphones and when I have finished doing that or if someone wants to talk to me, I. Take. Them. Off. (difficult concept, I know)

Google Glass, in my opinion, is nothing more than an excuse for geeks with good vision to wear glasses and finally have the nerdy look. Another one is for people too lazy to take a phone out of their pocket to take a picture or get the time.